Author
Topic: House cleaning (Read 2098 times)

With the move to BitShares 2.0 I think some delegate house cleaning is in order.

First, I think it is really important that we identify how many unique individuals there are who are actually running delegates (and standby delegates). There are many people who are running multiple delegates in order to help out others without the technical skill or the time to run and maintain a node. This is no longer necessary with BitShares 2.0. Any nodes run by the same person are a waste of money since they add cost without adding any extra decentralization of control. It makes more sense to have 30 witnesses each controlled by a unique person than 30 unique people collectively running 101 witnesses. And with BitShares 2.0 we finally have the flexibility to do that.

Second, many 100% delegates can either be consolidated or entirely removed. The referral rewards program is the replacement to marketing delegates. Do you think it would be premature to start the process of voting out those delegates that are no longer needed due to the referral program, or should we wait until BitShares 2.0 has officially launched first? Also, there is no need to have 100% delegates for all the individual devs who will be working for Cryptonomex. This will all be replaced by a worker proposal for a specific project that the Cryptonomex team will be working on with specified payment amounts, periods, vesting schedule, etc. This is the new standard for workers. There needs to be a clear proposal for how much money is needed to accomplish a specific task in some period of time. So, I think that even the 100% delegates that the community may want to keep as workers need to re-articulate their mission with a well thought out worker proposal and again present it to the community for a vote.

One of the first things I think we should start with is asking all the 100% paid delegates to declare whether they are the ones actually running their nodes, and if so, are they still interested in running a witness node in BitShares 2.0 (at witness pay levels of course). Then we should go through all the other delegates in the top 101 and try to identify the bitsharestalk forum user who controls that node. If this person has publicly revealed their identity, then that makes things easier. Otherwise, we should try to determine how confident we are that more than one of those identified forum users are not controlled by the same person. This is of course impossible to do accurately, but we can get some sense of it by looking at the reputation and activity level of those users on the forum (at this stage few people would be willing to put in the time and effort required to make multiple accounts they control all appear to be active and individual people with their own unique thoughts and ideas). This process excludes otherwise viable candidates for witnesses who happen to not be very active on the forum, but in that case I think they either need to start getting active and/or reveal their identity if they really want to become a witness.

I been attempting for the past week to get a dead delegate voted out but it continues to fester.

delegate1.john-galt

As for my positions for minebitshares/bunkermining.. I have expressed time and again that the need for multiples is due to the limiting funding of the current model. The reality is we don't have 101, we have more like maybe 15 if that. Many developers have mulltiple 100% delegates.. and many older 3%ers that have been unresponsive in providing feeds.

My plan for my delegates when we get to 2.0 is to put in a single worker proposal, get that approved, and then wind up all my delegates down to 1 witness + 1 worker. This is detailed in my bid at http://vote.bunkermining.com

Others we have not heard much from maybe because of other things.. be nice to hear where all the others are at.

Other delegates that are not in the 101 (though I think should be) that I provided managed services too are:

delegate.kencodedelegate.dposhub-org

You will note that among all the 101, I have maintained up to date feeds, and all of these delegates have operated with almost no downtime since we started managing them.

Also note we are the only ones that can survive extreme conditions.. even the atomic kind.

After our BunkerShares campaign we have new upgrades being done to our control panel and network infrastructure that is going to enable us to control servers in over 25 different locations worldwide from the bunker. I have plans to develop load balanced templates for any delegates we might manage so they have the option to have their servers run from a particular location as a primary and perhaps the bunker as a secondary.

I run a nuclear bunker data center.. sooo kinda have a lot of resources to bring to this space.

So there is my contribution to "The Purge"

Logged

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+www.Peerplays.com | World's First Decentralized Tournament Platform Built Entirely on the Blockchain!+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

This is the new standard for workers. There needs to be a clear proposal for how much money is needed to accomplish a specific task in some period of time. So, I think that even the 100% delegates that the community may want to keep as workers need to re-articulate their mission with a well thought out worker proposal and again present it to the community for a vote.

Logged

JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?BTSDEX.COM

Is there a way to identify or measure geological distribution of the delegates?

I'm starting to get the impression that a lot of the delegates are now clustering on a couple of small locations. Worst case scenario we'll have a large number of sockpuppet delegates with no actual separate infrastructure or benefit to security and robustness.

EDITTake for example the 10 delegates or more databunker is managing are they all on the same network connection? Nothing personal to you Data, it's just that you posted here, I'm sure there are others doing the same thing.

Is there a way to identify or measure geological distribution of the delegates?

I'm starting to get the impression that a lot of the delegates are now clustering on a couple of small locations. Worst case scenario we'll have a large number of sockpuppet delegates with no actual separate infrastructure or benefit to security and robustness.

EDITTake for example the 10 delegates or more databunker is managing are they all on the same network connection? Nothing personal to you Data, it's just that you posted here, I'm sure there are others doing the same thing.

I agree.

We need to think about geographical location of witnesses and witness nodes, as well as the political location of witnesses and nodes.

We need to model the most likely threats to the network. Do we think they are collusion amongst witnesses, coercion of witnesses, or simply the prevention of block production through political, or other geographical issues.

Data said that his nodes were working in multitudes of countries with a backup running at his compound. He may be much more prepared for political pressure than the rest of us, but you have to ask yourself. How much political pressure would it take to take any of us down?

I believe we need as many individual witness operators as possible, in as many political environments as possible.

We also need to think about where threats are likely to come from, and how best to resist those threats. I still think a dead mans switch would be a good idea. If you do not log into a node, and submit a command within the appointed time, the node changes its public data to something along the lines of "I have been compromised. Vote me out"

Countries in blue have less perceived political corruption, red have more perceived corruption.

Country risk refers to the risk of investing in a country, dependent on changes in the business environment that may adversely affect operating profits or the value of assets in a specific country. For example, financial factors such as currency controls, devaluation or regulatory changes, or stability factors such as mass riots, civil war and other potential events contribute to companies' operational risks.Red = more risk, green = less risk

Logged

JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?BTSDEX.COM